Commandos

At the United States War Department, artillery officer and future colonel James Garner (as William Orlando Darby) persuades superiors he is the man to lead a new World War II combat unit in Europe. Consequently, "Darby's Rangers" are trained. They face tough action, have relationships with beautiful women abroad, and face the inevitable tragedies you've see in many other war movies. Based on reality, this was the penultimate film from director William A. Wellman. He still has a knack for battle scenes, light interludes (like the "dusting" bit) and can punctuate blitzkriegs with the sound of a tea kettle...

"Darby's Rangers" is well produced, freshly cast, but hardly ever less than obvious. Believable on the big screen, in his first "starring role," Mr. Garner is absent much of the running time, as this is really an "ensemble" war drama. An unsubtle Jack Warden (as Saul Rosen) provides narration. The other soldiers' stories are more interesting, with nicely styled Edward "Edd" Byrnes (as Arnold Dittman) essaying arguably the best-written role, handsome young Peter Brown (as Rollo Burns) making the greatest emotional impression, and card shark Stuart Whitman (as Hank Bishop) leading the rest of the pack.

****** Darby's Rangers (2/12/58) William A. Wellman ~ James Garner, Edd Byrnes, Peter Brown, Stuart Whitman

Darby's Rangers -or The Young Invaders ,to give it the title under which it was shown in Great Britain - is a lengthy world war two movie about the formation of the US Rangers ,its initial training at the hands of the British in Scotland and its success in battle both in Africa and Europe .It also devotes some considerable time to the private lives of the troops especially there involvement with women On neither level is it particularly engrossing with the battle scenes clearly being staged on a studio set which renders them somewhat artificial looking and unconvincing while the platoon members are just not interesting enough to make me care greatly what happens to them The acting is routine Garner is under used and such young performers as Peter Brown and Ed Byrne lack the experience and charisma to hold the screen

Good to see the British accorded some respect in a US war movie but otherwise this is routine fare indeed

I'm sorry to say that this film, which is James Garner's first leading role, is a mess. And almost all of the fault is in the writing.

There have been other films about military teams in training. And they have been better than this.

We can thank the writing for some horrible characters. And some terrible plots. They try to mix training scenes with scenes concerning the personal lives of the men, but it's all a mess.

I wish I could list all the times I cringed in response to a particular line, but that is not possible. They follow one another like lemmings.

Some visual effects were also off-putting, like when they trainees are rappelling up a cliff and one man's line comes loose and he plummets to the ground. The entire scene was contrived, amateurish and poorly done.

Obviously there are some people who liked this film, but I cannot recommend it.

Recycling the well worn "Sands of Iwo Jima" formula of a disparate group of new recruits getting trained at boot camp, coming together as a team, and then taking to the battlefield, "Darby's Rangers" offers nothing new, but is entertaining for fans of these type of WWII films. It's a durable formula that's can work well (i.e. Clint Eastwood's "Heartbreak Ridge") or can be so bad that it becomes a parody of itself (i.e. John Wayne's "The Green Berets"). With a veteran film director at the helm, William Wellman, and a strong cast (James Garner, Jack Warden, Peter Brown, Stuart Whitman, Murray Hamilton, and David Janssen) you have the makings for solid entertainment, which is exactly what "Darby's Ranger" delivers with Garner leading his squad into North Africa and Italy for exciting WWII action. The downside to the film is that the portions of the story focused on Garner's command level politics and the infantrymen's liberty romances are less than interesting.

I had not seen this film before this year, and I was surprised how good it was. Though obviously filmed in the USA its portrayal of British characters (though incidental to the plot), was refreshingly good. The action scenes were well filmed and it is nice to see James Garner not playing for laughs. Though a good light comedian, I think he is best in straight roles like in 36 Hours and the Great Escape. The cast is on the whole very good, and I have to say that I thoroughly recommend watching this film, if like me you are a war movie fan.